|
? Game
Aug 7, 2004 16:35:33 GMT -5
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 7, 2004 16:35:33 GMT -5
Best Linebacker corp?
I would think the top 10 are UVA, Texas, Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, Maryland, Tennessee, LSU, USC, and San Diego State.
One of these? or a different team?
|
|
|
? Game
Aug 7, 2004 16:31:01 GMT -5
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 7, 2004 16:31:01 GMT -5
I'm gonna go with K-State.
Nebraska has a shot, but i believe they play at K State this year, right?
Mizzou's overrated.
|
|
|
? Game
Aug 6, 2004 21:53:53 GMT -5
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 6, 2004 21:53:53 GMT -5
I agree with you that there's a whole lot of parity now in college football.
But i am a little fearful that USC could run the table this year, finish as the only undefeated team, and still not be the best.
That Pac-10 schedule is pretty weak compared to the schedules of ACC, SEC, Big 12, and Big 10 teams.
Also, i think the reason for the Parity is , first, the NCAA rules that lessened the number of scholrships that certain teams are allowed to give. Players are forced to go other places and Alabama, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame don't get 70 or so scholarship football players a year like they did in the 70's.
Seondly, I think ESPN has helped create the parity. ESPN created nationally televised games between teams like Marshall and Tulsa. Before ESPN these teams were rarely on television, let alone coast-to-coast on thursday night.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 6, 2004 22:01:00 GMT -5
I don't think Wuerffel belongs on that list. He won one game as the starter for my skins a few years ago. j/k. Seriously though, he was never projected to be an outstanding pro, by other than Florida fans at least.
I'll rank my top 5 recent busts.
1. Eric Crouch 2. Desmond Howard (I'm a skins fan, i felt that one) 3. Gino Toretta 4. Chris Weinke 5. Andre Ware
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 26, 2004 23:51:42 GMT -5
OSU has a better chance than Tennessee because of both overall talent and an easier schedule. That is to say that Tennessee's SEC schedule is more difficult when you consider its top level opponents.
OSU really only has to beat NCState, Michigan, Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue, and Wisconsin. There are a number of teams that could run the table on those teams this year (5-10)
Tennessee on the other hand has to get by Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Notre Dame, and then likely LSU in the confrerence championship. There may be only 1 or 2 teams in the nation that would run that schedule.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 4, 2004 1:53:05 GMT -5
ACC - 3 way tie: Miami (w/ loss at either GaTech or UVA), FSU w/ loss at Miami, and Maryland w/ loss at Clemson
SEC - Georgia over LSU in Atlanta
Big 12 - Texas over KState (only because they get Nebraska at home)
Big 10 - I'm gonna take Ohio State but i could just as easliy take Michigan
Pac 10 - USC w/o a single close game
Big East - West Virginia: a 10-1 or 9-2 team that is not in the best 30 in the Nation (losses to Maryland and maybe VaTech)
MAC - Northern Illinios over Marshall
WAC - Hawaii after defeating Boise State in OT game in Boise then Fresno State in another close one in Fresno
CUSA - Memphis after stringing together 2 big wins against Louisville and SoMiss in Graceland
MWC - Utah, w/o too much trouble
Sun Belt - North Texas, somebody has to play in the New Orlens Bowl (maybe play in state rival TCU?)
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Oct 28, 2004 22:46:14 GMT -5
Duke is way overrated in that poll.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Sept 8, 2004 1:22:22 GMT -5
Lawrence Roberts will likely desrve it, though I see it going to a guard in the ACC, prolly on whichever team wins the ACC regular season.
Also, in all the games of McCants' I've watched he usually seems to me to be the third best player on his own team. I think he is well overrated because of his scoring numbers.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 31, 2004 12:12:49 GMT -5
I will start with a quote from before your time... "Jane, you ignorant slut!" First of all, I brought up Wilt Chamberlain to show you how stupid your argument is. Check and see how many black players he played against at Kansas. Next, UK did lose with an all white team to Texas Western in 1966. How many black players were in your wonderful, precious ACC in the '65 - '66 season? One. Two more were added the next year, so don't get preachy. Next, let's examine Maravich in the pros: He played on losing teams, as top draft picks often do. His rookie season, his average was 23.2 ppg,(9th in the league) and was named to the all-rookie team. In his 3rd season he averaged 26.1, 5th in the NBA ( a teamate was 4th) and went to his first all-star game. He also had 6.9 assists per game, good for 6th in the league. In the '75 -'76 year he was 3rd in the league in scoring (behind Macadoo and Jabbar) The next part comes straight from the NBA website: "The following season was Maravich's finest as a professional. He saw action in 73 games and led the NBA in scoring with a career-best 31.1 p p g. He scored 40 or more points 13 times, the most in the NBA that season and he led the league in total points (2,273), field goals attempted (2,047) and free throws made (501). On Feb. 25, 1977, he scored 68 points in a game against the New York Knicks despite the efforts of defensive ace Walt Frazier to bottle him up. Maravich's performance that day ranks as the 11th-best single-game total in NBA history. He returned to the NBA All-Star Game in 1977 and earned his second straight berth on the All-NBA First Team" Also from the same site: "Maravich was a notorious long-range bomber during his career, but ... he had never played in a league, college or pro, that used the three-point shot. All of his many points had come on two-pointers, even when launched from a great distance. In 1979-80, the NBA finally adopted the three-point shot. In his final season-with his skills rusty, his knees creaky, and his minutes limited-Pistol Pete Maravich finally got a chance to shoot three-pointers. He went 10-for-15." Doesn't sound embarassing to me... In conclusion; your arguments, as stated before are baseless, stupid, and don't deal with facts. Grow some pubes and do some research before you make claims you can't back up. You are making Maryland fans look bad. I like them, for the most part, but you aren't helping. Hey Chill out. I never said the ACC allowed blacks to play in the early or mid-60's, i didn't bring up the ACC at all. All I said was that a number of players could do what Maravich did if they didn't play against black players. I stand by that. I wonder if you disagree. Imagine Larry Bird, David Thompson, Patrick Ewing, Magic Johnson, Lou Alcindor, Bill Walton, Oscar Robertson, or Tim Duncan playing against all-white competition. Wouldn't they have dominated as well? Notice, I never said players on the next level down were as good or better than Maravich. However, if we're trying to find the single greatest player of all time we should compare him to the BEST, I'm saying his level of competition was not as difficult as any of the rest of the players I previously mentioned. The reference to his pro career was, simply, that early on he had large numbers of turnovers and took many poor shots, leading to a poor FG%. (I tried to find the numbers at the website you quoted from but couldn't.) I wonder, since you have this weird desire to criticize my age, the maturity level of someone who would end an arguement that was never heated with the line "Grow some pubes." Classy. Bob Knight would be proud.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 28, 2004 15:18:37 GMT -5
Saying Maravich wasn't a great player because he didn't play against predominantly black competetion is incredibly stupid. You could say the same for Wilt Chamberlain, and you would sound just as off base. Pete was an incredible offensive talent, shooter, passer, and dribbler. Overall, I would go with Oscar Robertson or Bill Walton, but to make that statemant about Maravich is just uninformed. He played in the pros, and did just fine offensively, on poor teams, playing against a lot of great black players. Len Bias was a good player, but gets this "aura" around him because he died. Look at the record books. Did he dominate the national competition? No. David Thompson, you could argue, was among the best, or Bernard King, or a lot of others. Don't let Maryland glasses and youth blind you to good players from the past. An add on: Maravich, (and Alcindor, Robertson, Thompson, etc) scored all those points in 3 years of eligibility. Top that. A player today won't do that against the Washington Generals. The game is different, granted, but it ain't gonna happen. Players are too busy now trying to go one-on-one for a dunk to make the Sportscenter highlights. The problem with putting Maravich on the list is not that he didn't play "predominantly" black players. It is that he played NO black players, the SEC was all White is his day. Was he a great college player? yes. But he doesn't belong in this onversation. Kentucky fans know all too well what happens when play in a all white league after they got beat by Texas Western in Cole Field House years back. To prove my point, look what happened to him when e did play against black players, professionally, He got embarrassed often. He's and amazing player, no doubt, but doesn't stack up against Alcindor, Walton, Larry Bird, David Thompson, Len Bias, Patrick Ewing, Oscar Robertson, David Robinson, and others.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 26, 2004 23:59:24 GMT -5
I'm going to go with Maravich There have been a lot of players that could've done what Maravich did if they didn't play against black players. Its Lou Alcindor, easily. (I have not idea how to spell his name) Though i will plug Len Bias as one of the 5 greatest of all time, best 2/3 swingman in college bball history. (Thats if we're taking them at their best, not over all four year, then its David Thompson.)
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 23, 2004 18:29:45 GMT -5
I know Maryalnd was tourney champs.
But when maryland went 15-1 and won the regular season ACC a few years back all of the ACC and national sports media called duke "acc champs" after they won the tourney.
Using the term ACC champs is just a way to get under their skin.
I understand we were the tournament champs.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 21, 2004 0:17:07 GMT -5
You really can't have a top 10 w/o mentioning the defending ACC champs
We lost Jamar Smith, that's it
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 25, 2004 16:50:49 GMT -5
On 8/23/04 Fullforce wrote: I'm only joshing you Fullforce. The Poleons are not Kennedyesque at all....we're more like the Lodges and the Cabots...."The Lodges only talk to the Cabots and the Cabots only talk to God". Besides, I winter in Maui and wouldn't be caught dead in the Hamptons.....I like to pick on the Marylanders because their team is a bunch of Turtles, er Terrapins BUT I really do Hate Duke! LMAO -Poleon Well as long as you hate Duke, then there's no hard feelings. Let me give everyone another reason to hate Duke, their fans chanted "crackhead baby" at Juan Dixon when they learned that his parents died while he was in 9th grade from AIDS they got from sharing needles. Yelling during free-throws is one thing, as are chants of "overrated" and booing, but making fun of someone because their parents died of AIDS is really low.
|
|
|
Post by fullforce11 on Aug 23, 2004 3:39:29 GMT -5
Well, I can't speak for other schools, but I do know that Maryland fans have to use the servant's entrance to get into Poleon Manor! LMAO -Poleon UVA 1957 That wouldn't surprise me, Maryland fans don't claim to be Kennedyesque-I go between my oceanfront house in Maine and my Bel Air Manor-sort of people. Maryland has always had to work twice as hard to get half the recognition of most other ACC schools.
|
|